Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Mike Weir in the Chair]

Michael Weir: I remind the Committee that the Bill has a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution connected with it. Copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. Please would all Committee members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or in silent mode during Committee meetings. Although it is a bit cooler than it has been, hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish todo so.
First, we come to the programme motion, which may be debated for up to half an hour.

Ian McCartney: I beg to move
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 17 April) meet—
(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 17 April;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 19 April;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 24 April;
(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 26 April;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 25; Schedule 2; Clauses 26 to 30; Schedule 3; Clauses 31 to 35; Schedule 4; Clauses 36 to 45; Schedule 5; Clauses 46 to 53; Schedule 6; Clauses 54 to 67; Schedules 7 and 8; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday 26 April.
This is the first time that I have led on a Bill under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir.
I hope that both the Bill and my performance will live up to expectations. The Under-Secretary of State and I intend to deal with matters effectively. We will give the fullest answers that we can to probing amendments, and will treat on their merits amendments that have been tabled in order to make legitimate changes to the Bill. I give Committee members a commitment that if issues arise on which they require me to provide more detailed information in writing, I shall try to provide such information before the next sitting in order to ensure continuity. Finally, the Committee will know that when this Bill was considered in the House of Lords, we accepted reasonable amendments and those improved it in a number of ways.
May I take this opportunity, Mr. Weir, to ask you on behalf of the Committee to send our condolences to the families and friends of the 32 people killed yesterday at the university in Virginia by a gunman who then turned his gun on himself? The thoughts of all of us are with the bereaved families and those who have been injured in that tragedy. If the Committee agrees, later today I shall write on its behalf to the United States ambassador, Robert Holmes Tuttle, to express its sympathy and send its condolences to those affected.
The timings for this Bill were agreed at a short meeting yesterday. We had a good debate on Second Reading, and I think that we know the general and specific issues that are likely to arise from amendments and in debate.

Mark Prisk: May I add my greetings to you, Mr. Weir? Like the Minister, I do not think that I have been guided through a Bill by you, and I hope that you will be able to treat us all with firmness and fairness. I also welcome the Ministers. I do not know whether we have reached such a state of lawlessness that they need to travel in pairs, but it is nice to see them both and I look forward to debating with them.
Before I touch on the motion, may I endorse what the Minister said about the dreadful shootings in Virginia? I visited the town three years ago and have been on that campus, so I was particularly shocked.
The Bill has, as the Minister said, already been discussed in another place. Therefore, it has already received some important amendments, a number of which were tabled by my noble Friends. I hope that, as the Minister implied, that was a sign that we will take a cross-party approach to the scrutiny process. That process is vital to good legislation, and the work of a Committee such as this—the careful consideration of the words, phrases and meanings of our laws—is essential. That is why we on the Opposition Benches have often opposed the routinely heavy-handed programming of our deliberations by the current Government. I am sad to say that time and again we have faced aggressive timetabling and guillotines. The result of that is that clauses and schedules that need amending, correcting or improving often go unconsidered and undebated.
That is a problem not just because of what it means for the regard that people have for the House but because what we do here affects every constituent and citizen in the land. We must therefore get legislation right. That is why we are pleased to see that, on this occasion, the Government have been willing to resist the temptation to restrain our deliberations. We hope to contribute to them in a positive and thoughtful manner, and hopefully at the end of the process the Bill will be better than it is today.

Question put and agreed to.

Michael Weir: I now call the Minister to move the motion to report written evidence. This is a formality whereby any written evidence that the Committee accepts enjoys the benefit of parliamentary privilege.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—[Mr. McCartney.]

Mark Prisk: I simply wish to record one or two thoughts on the motion. I do not oppose the principle of it, which is entirely right. It is a proposal that has been made by the House. However, I wonder whether other members of the Committee find the way in which it has been implemented to date helpful. I received the papers that we will consider only this morning. There are three or four essential papers, including one from BOC Gases. There is one from the Consumers Association, with which I happen to have been in conversation previously, so I was aware of that paper. I also note that there are papers from the Law Society of Scotland and Citizens Advice.
Those papers are all helpful and important, and I do not oppose the principle that underlies the new procedure, but I wonder whether the way in which it operates is helpful, particularly in relation to this Bill. I have open mind: other Members might say that it has been extremely helpful, which will be fine. The danger is that a lot of paper is produced, and although individual Members might have the opportunity to raise one particular point or perhaps ask a question, if the procedure is to work properly it is important for the papers to come at least a week before the Committee begins so that Members have time to consider their arguments.
I do not wish to oppose the motion, but I should like to put on record the fact that, while the principle is good, it is perhaps not working as well as it might.

Ian McCartney: All I can say is that as the hon. Gentleman knows, I will continue to try to ensure that information is provided to hon. Members in an adequate and non-partisan way. As he said, the system is new and is very different from when I was on the Back Benches and the Front-Bench spokesman forthe Opposition would get absolutely nothing from the Government—neither amendments, sympathy nor a scrap of paper on how to deal with things. We want to ensure that the system works in a practical way, and I take on board what the hon. Gentleman said.

Michael Weir: I note to the Committee that I understand that the Scrutiny Unit is responsible for distributing the papers, and that they are distributed as soon as they are received. The Minister is not responsible for the fact that the papers have been received just this morning.

Mark Prisk: Thank you, Mr. Weir. Perhaps it would be helpful if the concerns that I have raised were fed back to the Scrutiny Unit so that, as the process develops, it can improve for future Bills.

Michael Weir: I will certainly feed that back, but it depends on when papers are received. They can be distributed only once received.

Question put and agreed to.

Michael Weir: Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Clause 1

Establishment of the National Consumer Council and its territorial committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I add my welcome to you as our co-Chairman, Mr. Weir. I am sure that we shall benefit from your guidance and stewardship. This relatively straightforward clause establishes a new statutory corporate body—the National Consumer Council—and requires it to establish and maintain territorial committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to be known formally as the Scottish Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and the Northern Ireland Postal Services Committee respectively. The names of the national and Welsh consumer councils are also provided in the Welsh language. The clause introduces schedule 1, which makes further provision in relation to the council and its territorial committees.

Mark Prisk: As the Minister said, the clause establishes in statute the new NCC and the new territorial committees. I shall consider their remit in clause 2 in more detail.
I will not revisit the principle of the proposal—the merging of various utility consumer organisations—which we debated on Second Reading. However, I want to explore the Government’s intentions towards the new council and its potential remit, now and in the future.
The Government consultation prior to the Bill addressed the issue of what were then termed regulated industries, not just gas, water and electricity, and included the entire communications industry and consideration of financial services. However, the Bill reflects a narrower interpretation, perhaps understandably, as it seeks to merge into the council only those bodies that we would naturally recognise as utilities: gas, water, electricity and, in this case, postal services. Furthermore, it acknowledges the timing problems for the waterindustry vis-Ã -vis the pricing review. The upshot is that it will not seek to incorporate either the financial services or the Ofcom consumer panels into the new council.
However, part 1 of schedule 1 on page 42 enables the Secretary of State to appoint members of the financial services panel and Ofcom to the council, despite the Government agreeing that at present it has “no plans” to incorporate such organisations into the council. The Government thus recognise the potential need for a wider remit.
That leads me to consider how the council might develop in the coming years. A regulated industry covers many things; hon. Members on both sidesof the Committee can think of a number of different industries that do not immediately and currently fall within the purview of the Bill. As such, a regulated industry could therefore mean many more things than we are debating and my concern is how the council might develop when it is established in primary legislation.
For example, many of my constituents, and, I suspect, those of Labour Members, want increasedand strengthened consumer representation in the railway industry, which is regulated, and they will have complaints about pricing, servicing and so on. Is it the Government’s view, therefore, that the new council could or should extend the remit to bodies or sectors beyond those named in the Bill? Does the Minister envisage other regulated industries being included in the future, and, if so, which industries?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman is on a fishing expedition to identify future Government plans, which I am not in a position to identify for him, other than those for water, which was widely discussed on Second Reading and which will be incorporated in prospective consultation next year. At present there are no plans; we will fully explore some of the issues that he raised in later clauses.

James Duddridge: Mr. Weir, this is the first time that I have encountered a ministerial double act, and, for the sake of clarity, I ask which Minister has responsibility for each part of the Bill and who will reply to the debate on the relevant clauses.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that information as our discussions develop. As he said, we have two Ministers present with responsibility for different aspects of the Bill and responsibility within the Department for different aspects of policy. However, there is blurring at the edges on some issues. Therefore, we may well get a double act in response at some point during the course of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: The Minister perhaps unintentionally implied that this was what he described as merely a fishing expedition, but the purpose of the Committee is to explore how far the legislation could extend. So, I suspect that he may regret those remarks and I hope that he will have the courtesy to reconsider them.
I want to know exactly what he would rule out. For example, would the Government never include the railway? I do not oppose inclusions, I just want to make sure that the Government’s intentions are crystal clear.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Forgive me, but I am not an angler and was not in any way disparaging the fishing community or fishing as an activity. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was correct, the mechanism is entirely appropriate for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill, as well as future plans and so on. I can only repeat the answer that I started earlier, that the sectors in the Bill are the ones being dealt with. Future Governments may have plans for other services to be incorporated. We have mentioned that, subject to the consultation next year, water may be incorporated in due course, but at this point there are no further concrete plans.

Mark Prisk: Simply, should the new council extend its remit beyond those industries currently in the Bill?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologize to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Weir, but I am not in a position to rule anything in or out other than what I have already said. The Bill deals with the services and arrangements as outlined; we have said that water may well be incorporated; there is nothing further for the Government to say now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

The National Consumer Council

Ian McCartney: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in schedule 1, page 53, line 7, leave out from ‘(b)’ to ‘before’ and insert
‘send a copy of the certified statement and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report to the Secretary of State, who shall lay them’.
I do not propose to detain the Committee long on the amendment, which is minor and of a technical nature, making the Department rather than the Comptroller and Auditor General responsible for laying the new national consumer council’s accounts before Parliament. As presently drafted, paragraph 32 of schedule 1 requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received from the new NCC. The Comptroller and Auditor General must then lay a copy of each statement and of the report before Parliament.
Discussions between my Department and the National Audit Office suggested that the requirement to lay copies of all the accounts and associatedreports before Parliament should be the responsibility of the Department rather than of the Comptrollerand Auditor General. Under the provisions of the amendment, the council will send a copy of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of Stateand to the Comptroller and Auditor General under paragraph 32(3) of schedule 1. Having examined, certified and reported on the statement of accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General will then send a copy of the certified accounts and of the report to the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for laying copies before Parliament.
Precedent for the revised arrangements has been set with other newly created bodies, such as in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 for Natural England and in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 for the Olympic Delivery Authority. The Secretary of State is responsible for laying the accounts of those new bodies. The amendment therefore brings the new council into line with other newly created bodies. In short, the Comptroller and Auditor General has two requirements: to certify the accounts; and to report his or her opinion of the accounts to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has two requirements: a duty to lay the accounts and the report before Parliament; and to report the Comptroller and Auditor General’s opinion of the accounts to Parliament. As usual, they will be laid before both Houses.

Susan Kramer: Since this is the first time on my feet, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir. This is the first time that I have been involved in a Bill Committee, so I am afraid that I will be turning occasionally to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who has far more experience here than me; I hope you will forgive my naivety from time to time. I use this opportunity to join the Minister and others in sending condolences to those who have lost dear loved ones and friends in Virginia.
Given the short time that is available for the consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and I made a decision that we will get to our feet when we have something to say, but not when we do not. I have to confess that when I looked at amendment No. 59 to schedule 1, I found myself bemused as to what it was about and why it was onthe amendment paper. Will the Minister assure usthat that change does not compromise in any way the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General or of the National Consumer Council? That fundamental concern of ours is raised by the changing of the pathway so that reports come via the Secretary of State, rather than directly to Parliament or the public. It allows a negotiating or adjustment process, and provides the opportunity to put out press releases and spin the story before the report fulfils its end purpose. If the adjustment is merely technical, we do not have a problem with it, but we do if it affects independence in any way or provides a path for influence.

Ian McCartney: The hon. Lady should not worry about this being her first Committee; this is my first Committee since 1999. In my previous jobs, the Government have managed to hide me away from Parliament. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is accused of being my chaperone. Heaven forbid such a thing. Perhaps we could be known as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, as we are in that age group.

Tobias Ellwood: How about Little and Large?

Ian McCartney: That is far too predictable coming from such a big man as the hon. Gentleman. I think that I am eyeballing him at the moment.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked a fair, reasonable question. I give her an absolute assurance that a duty will be placed on the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses not only the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on the accounts, but the accounts themselves. The amendment arose from discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General and members of his office. We feel that it is the best way of transmitting the information to Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Mark Prisk: The Minister is right to suggest that he and his colleague are not Little and Large. I suspect that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) will remember the Krankies; perhaps that would be a closer comparison. Having teased the Minister in that way—

Ian McCartney: I do not want to be sexist, but one of the Krankies is female.

Mark Prisk: I have always trusted the Ministerto be capable of performing any function in the Government, and he has shown his dexterity in that manner.
I shall return to the order of the day and move delicately and swiftly to schedule 1, about which I should like to raise a number of practical concerns. Paragraph 1 provides the Secretary of State with the power to appoint members. Will the Minister tell us how many members are to be appointed? What would be the overall size of the council? That might be set out in regulations, or the council might be able to determine it. Given that the Secretary of State will be granted the power to make appointments, it would be helpful to know the scope of the organisation. Subparagraphs (4)(a) and (b) relate to the Financial Services Authority and Ofcom. During our consideration of clause 1, I mentioned that they are included in, although not merged into, the organisation. Appointments are permitted in that area. Will the Minister explain the rationale behind that decision?
Paragraph 10 says:
“(1) The Council may make arrangements with such persons as it considers appropriate for assistance to be provided to it.
(2) Arrangements may include the paying of fees to such persons.”
Could the Minister tell us exactly what the Secretary of State has in mind here, in particular the form of assistance and therefore the fees that will be paid for that help?
In part 3, which starts on page 45, paragraph 12, which starts on page 46, deals with the regional committees; paragraph 12 establishes that particular set of organisations. Could the Minister confirm what the boundaries of those regional committees will be? This measure provides the council with the ability to establish committees
“for areas within the United Kingdom”.
“Areas” is, of course, a different word from regions. The measure then refers to regional committees. What I am seeking to establish is the boundaries of those regional committees. For example, most Members would assume that a regional committee relates, perhaps, to the existing regions that the Government seek to administer their funds through; for example, the Government office for the south-west of England, or whatever. Would these committees be similarly bounded, or would they be smaller? Would there be one, for example, for Lancashire, or one for Yorkshire, or one for Cornwall and Devon? It would be helpful to know whether or not the Secretary of State would approve, because in the end these committees have to be approved by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to understand the nature of this particular set of organisations.
Similarly, in part 3, paragraph 15 on page 47 is a “General provision about committees”. Paragraph 15(4) states:
“The members of a sub-committee established by a committee may include persons who are not members of the committee.”
That is entirely understandable; one may wish to have outside experts join the sub-committee to discuss a particular issue. However, it would be helpful to know whether or not these sub-committees could be made up of a majority of non-committee members. I ask that because a lot of the council’s powers are delegated down to these committees and the Committee herein the House might wish to consider whether or not delegated powers that have financial implications could end up being exercised by a sub-committee that is not made up of people who are part of the principal organisation but instead made up of outside experts. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what the Secretary of State’s intention is, and what he would or would not approve.
Paragraphs 17(1) and 17(3) on page 47 deal with the “Terms of appointment etc” and examine the issue of pay and remuneration. It would be helpful for the Committee to understand what the current powers of remuneration are and how they would change. After all, the existing National Consumer Council is somewhat different to the newly enlarged organisation. It would therefore be helpful—if not now, then certainly in due course once the Committee is sitting—for us to be told what that change is likelyto be.
Lastly on this schedule, I would like to turn to part 5, on page 49, which deals with “Funding and accounts”. I think that the existing National Consumer Council relies for 81 per cent. of its funding from the Department. It is that sort of amount; the Minister nods, so I assume that the figure is in that field. As we know, the Chancellor has already indicated that there will be a reduction in funding for the Department as a whole; there were announcements on that earlier in the year. What impact would that reduction in funding have on the council and indeed on Consumer Direct?
I know that Ministers hope that the new council will be able to achieve savings by merger. However, it would be helpful to know whether the new council will be able to rely on a similar amount of money and what proportion of its income the Government anticipate will come through to the new Department.

Susan Kramer: I have two quick questions about the schedule. First, looking at the membership of the council, the provision gives a lot of “permissions”—for example, to appoint individuals who will liaise with other relevant bodies, or to include within the membership disabled persons or persons with special needs—but perhaps the Minister can give us a better idea of the intention. Having participated on the board of Transport for London, I know that the importance of having a range of stakeholders with expertise in different areas on that board was extremely evident in its effective functioning. Can the Minister give us a better feel for what he sees as the scope of the membership? That will affect the functioning and flavour of the council.
Secondly, much of the funding for the range of services dealt with by the new NCC—other than that coming from the Department of Trade and Industry, which funds the current NCC—will come from the industries that are brought into the scope of the new organisation, such as energy suppliers and postal services companies. However, it seems unclear in discussions with those industries whether they know where they will be heading in future. Will they continue to be asked to provide the same level of funding, or will that change if the new NCC changes its focus and  priorities, so that it spends most of its energies looking at other industries rather than those that have been regulated by the individual bodies? In that case, how will the funding issue be resolved?
I ask the Minister to look forward and tell us not only where funding will come from immediately after the new body is constituted—we assume that that will be pretty much the same as it is today—but where it will travel in future. What sort of assurances can be given to consumers that it will be adequately funded, and to present funders that their concerns will remain in focus?

Tobias Ellwood: I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister to clarify the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. First, the schedule gives scope to a number of committees, and I seek clarification of the difference between a territorial committee and a regional committee. How do they work together, who is accountable to whom, and what size of area would they cover?
My second question relates to paragraph 14. It is one of those vague paragraphs, which is probably intended to cover a specific issue, but is written in such a way as to give a broad scope. I ask for some detailed clarification of its meaning. The paragraph states:
“The Council may establish such other committees as it considers appropriate.”
That is a general, bland statement, and the Minister should provide a bit of detail. Who would sit on that type of committee, what would it do, and to whom would it be accountable?

David Gauke: May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir? I, too, have a couple of points to make with regard to the schedule and the powers that the Secretary of State has to appoint the council chairman and other executive members. What, if any, role will Parliament have within that process?
I ask that question at a time when many politicians, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are talking about rebalancing the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. It is most often talked about in the context of the royal prerogative and declaring war, which is, thankfully, a rare occasion; none the less, there are many appointments to be made. The most obvious and frequent exercise of the royal prerogative is in appointments to organisations such as the one that we are discussing today, the NCC. If we are looking at rebalancing the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, some degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the appointments would be welcome.
I appreciate that that matter cannot necessarily be addressed in the Bill—it is a matter for the House—but I would be grateful to know whether, for example, the model for appointing members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England could be used. Following appointments to that body, hearings are held by a Select Committee—presumably the Trade and Industry Committee—to review them. Alternatively, could there be a more substantial process whereby Parliament has a role in confirming any appointment to the NCC?
That is important, partly, to demonstrate that whoever gets the role as chairman of the council is appointed on his or her merits and that the post is not seen as some sort of sinecure in the gift of the Secretary of State that could be given for service to the governing party, rather than for suitability for the post. In order to avoid any unnecessary suspicions along those lines, I urge Ministers to consider some role for Parliament within that process.

Ian McCartney: I thank hon. Members for their questions and will go through the schedule as best I can. In doing so, I will take on board what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, has said. There are questions to which I will not be able to give an adequate answer, which I would give in normal circumstances. It might be helpful to give members a note and I will explain what I mean by that when I get to each stage.
The membership of the council has yet to be decided. There will be appropriate consultation with the stakeholders as part of the implementation strategy. I give the assurance that at each stage of implementation strategy, which will run from this summer into next year, we will ensure that Opposition Front Benchers are kept informed. I am also more than happy to allow our officials to discuss the matter with them during the process of implementation. There should be no secrets; we want a non-partisan approach. We intend to ensure not only that there is appropriate consultation with stakeholders within that process, but that there is certainty at each stage both for the staff in the bodies that are to be merged and for Parliament about the process leading to the implementation of the measures in the Bill. That will, of course, include appointments.
Questions have been asked about accountability. Let me be absolutely clear: in the end, the Secretary of State will make the appointments technically, but there is a procedure laid down to ensure independence and transparency in the public appointments system—and quite rightly so. The Labour Government introduced that procedure because of the failures under the previous Government, who almost weekly appointed cronies from their own party to run everything that they could possibly get their hands on. That procedure will apply but I will send a note to hon. Members about the process, so that they are clear about it.
To go back to a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it is important that the number of people appointed reflects the needs of the organisation. To be entirely consistent, the appointments should reflect the skills, knowledge and background of consumers as a whole. That cannot, of course, mean a council of 60 or 70 people, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is more than reasonable. The effectiveness of the operation will be determined by the nature, background, skills and knowledge of those appointed. I assure her that when appointments come before me as a Minister and I have to go through the process, I try to ensure that issues of gender, race, disability and knowledge are dealt with, as I told the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. Our aim must be not to shoehorn someone in on that basis, but to ensure that the membership has the capacity to represent consumers as a whole. Those who represent consumers must have the knowledge, skills and capacity to do an effective job. I give the Committee those assurances.
On the question of a co-ordinated approach, it is also important that the bodies are established in such a way that their relationships with other parts of the consumer movement, either the regulatory bodies or the consumer panels, are coherent. We will deal with this later in the Bill—in clauses 39 and 40, I think. It is important that the structure reflects the capacity for a coherent and co-ordinated approach to the work of the new organisation.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about co-ordination and memberships of panels, and in many ways he gave the answer himself. It is important that we allow the capacity for expertise to be drawn in on specific issues and to ensure that when there is a report to be done or recommendations to be made, the NCC is able to bring into the organisation individuals or organisations who can add value to the decision-making process. Later clauses in the Bill relate to accountability for the work programme and the relationship between the work programme and resources. It is important to ensure that there is not only co-ordination, accountability and consultation about the work programme, but transparency about the resources available.

Mark Prisk: I welcome much of what the Minister has said. Will he confirm that the sub-committees, which could have delegated financial and other powers, would be made up predominantly of committee members—in other words members of council who have been delegated? The inclusion of experts is fine, but I suspect that hon. Members would be concerned if they formed the majority of a sub-committee that had financial powers.

Ian McCartney: I was getting to that point. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The measure is not about subcontracting out the democratic role of those appointed by the Secretary of State, where there is a responsibility for both the executive directors and the staff, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. It will be for the committee to decide whether it wishes to have sub-committees. It may have some and it may not. It may have them from time to time, and their role and period of existence may be limited.
The boundaries of regional committees will beat the discretion of the new council. The territorial committees represent the nation of Scotland, the principality of Wales and Northern Ireland. The regional committees will be established as and when required to cover specific areas. Again that will be part of the process of consultation and implementation proposals. I will come back to that later.

Mark Prisk: That is an excellent explanation of the territorial side. Will the Minister confirm whether regional committees are based simply on the boundaries of existing government regions or are more flexible?

Ian McCartney: There has to be some flexibility.I am doing this without a brief: I am giving thehon. Gentleman my opinion. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, is here. An organisation that is independent is best able to represent the interests of consumers. We will give it that independence. It will be for the new NCC to determine, after consultation on its work programme, the best way to do that and how effective consumer voices should be in the regions. Again, this is work in progress. I repeat the commitment I gave at the outset: as the process of implementation goes on apace, I will keep the Opposition Front-Bench teams aware of what we are doing.

Tobias Ellwood: It is wonderful to see some independence of thought from a Minister. I do not know how long it will last. I would be surprised if the original regional boundaries, which the Government have spent so much time establishing, were ignored, but it is good to see that we might be able to work around that. Will the Minister spell out what the other committees mentioned in paragraph 14 are all about?

Ian McCartney: I was going to come to that. The hon. Gentleman is a lot younger than me, but the boundaries of the regions of England were established by Lord Heseltine. If he has a beef, perhaps he can take it up with him. I have tried to be so non-partisan this morning. A partisan politician, I have been trying to be non-partisan this morning, but the hon. Gentleman keeps tweaking my tail and I will not be able to resist much longer.

James Duddridge: The Minister said that there may be some flexibility about the regions. Is he thinking of altering the boundaries only slightly, but keeping the same number of regions, or of splitting regions as well as altering the boundaries, which could result in many more regional committees and a larger associated cost?

Ian McCartney: We must remember that the council delegates the functions to the regional committees and it is for the council to determine the best way of doing so. The hon. Gentleman is trying to paint a picture of a bureaucratic arrangement, which the Government will impose on the NCC and its delivery organisations, but that is not what will happen.
Let me give an example to illustrate why some flexibility is needed. There are cross-border activities in all the English regions on issues that relate to matters that the new NCC will deal with. It would be nonsensical if, when investigating a matter on behalf of consumers, it had to say, “Sadly, we cannot discuss that in the north-west because the bulk of the problem arises just south in the west midlands or in Yorkshire and Humberside.” It would be sensible for the committees to be co-ordinated and to co-operate; that is my point. We want to give them the maximum flexibility to speak up and speak out on behalf of consumers, to raise issues effectively and to resolve them. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
There will be no cut in resources to Consumer Direct. The hon. Gentleman is trying to discover our strategic thinking on the end game—what will happen in the review and the spending round for the next three years—but he will have to wait; I can be quite open about that. However, what is absolutely certain is that whatever the outcome, the new body will not be hobbled by a lack of financial resources. The basis for its establishment is to provide a strong, independent voice for consumers and to achieve a fundamental change by bringing together organisations that do things well but do not have appropriate redress schemes and have no direct link with Consumer Direct, which is a very important organisation.
We made a decision some time ago about Consumer Direct’s budget. This year alone, more than 350,000 consumers have been able to access advice and to benefit from it, saving them £135 million. It was agreed that Consumer Direct’s budget of £19 million a year for 2006-07 and 2007-08 would be transferred to the Office of Fair Trading, which will have responsibility for managing Consumer Direct. The transfer is taking place now, and the OFT is in the process of recruiting additional staff to manage that process. As part of the commitment that I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford and for Richmond Park,I will provide fuller information about it at an appropriate time. The OFT is independent of Government and I have no problem with the organisation talking to hon. Members about its role and its work in respect of Consumer Direct, which is a critical first pathway for consumers to get advice, support and assistance when things go wrong.
The decisions about resources will be made in due course and reported to Parliament. Whatever those decisions are, the organisation will be given the necessary resources to act effectively.

Tobias Ellwood: I feel I am being denied, as this is the third time I have risen to ask about paragraph 14. Unless it is a state secret, will the Minister please respond to my question?

Ian McCartney: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to give a comprehensive reply to the points made in the debate without utilising my notes. Paragraph 14 simply gives the council the flexibility to determine which committees are appropriate. What do we mean by “appropriate”? The Bill sets out the council’s statutory obligation—what it is required to do—in representing consumers. In addition, it willbe required to determine its work programme by consultation, which will be a transparent, public process. That will give the council the flexibility from time to time in its programme of work—whether that is research work, work to improve access and advocacy for consumers who have been wronged, work to establish redress schemes, or any of the work set out in the Bill—to determine whether it needs a small group of people to work effectively on behalf of consumers. The provision is designed to achieve no more or less than that, and the matter will be for the NCC andits appointed members to determine with its chief executive officer and its chair. No doubt, if it does establish such committees, its annual report to Parliament will set out what they are for and what their work and outcome are.

Mark Prisk: On paragraph 17, on pay and remuneration, the Minister said that he hoped to write to us, but it would be helpful to know about it.

Ian McCartney: Yes. I believe that the matter is technically determined in law by the Secretary of State, but staff remuneration will be a matter for the new body to determine in the contracts of employment for staff. I have no doubt that that will be done through the national arrangements with the public sector unions, which will continue to represent their members after the merger.
On other appointments, the remuneration scales are set down, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the matter.

Susan Kramer: The Minister addressed the funding transfer of £19 million from the Office of Fair Trading to Consumer Direct but, as he will be aware, a significant amount of funding for Energywatch comes via the licence for the energy supply industry, and for Postwatch from the Post Office. I could ask the Minister to address the future of that funding later, when we discuss the work programme, but since he has entered that area, this might be an appropriate moment.

Ian McCartney: Again, I apologise. That is a very fair point. As I have set out, we are not setting up a cross-subsidy arrangement. Those bodies will be responsible for their own areas, and appropriate consultation will take place on the level of their budgets and the resources that they will have to provide. That is no different from the present situation, which we understand and know, so it will not be a difficulty. The bodies concerned are currently involved in an implementation and integration strategy, and that will continue.
The areas in which the Government have historically been responsible for payment will remain where they are—with the Government. They will be part of the open budgetary process that I described. If the hon. Lady wants an assurance that we will not turn up on the doorstep of the postal industry or another industry in a few months and say, “By the way, the cost of running this service for you is, say, £2 million, but we want £10 million off you,” I assure her that the process does not and cannot work that way. There is statutory provision to prevent that from happening.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

The territorial committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The clause provides for the territorial committees to exercise virtually all the functions of the new council on its behalf in relation to the territory for which each is established. In the case of Northern Ireland the functions of the territorial committee will be confined to postal service matters, because the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland already covers the consumer interest in other markets.
In addition, the clause provides for co-ordination between the committees and the new council in relation to the carrying out of the council’s functions by allowing the council to impose restrictions or conditions on the exercise of functions by the territorial committees. The new council may also give general or specific directions to the territorial committees on the exercise of any function by the committees. The committees will also have other functions, including the provision of advice to the new council about consumer matters in the relevant area or the exercise of its functions to the extent that they affect that area, and any other purposes that the new council determines under its powers.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the character and scope of the clause. As he said, its powers and functions reflect the debate in another place, where the Government tabled some amendments that shifted important functions to the devolved territorial committees. Indeed, on Report, the noble Lord Truscott, speaking on behalf of the Government, said:
“There are very few instances where the functions of the council are not exercisable by the territorial committees”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2007; Vol. 689,c. 133.]
The Minister in effect confirmed that in his opening remarks.
The interesting point is that, in one sense, the argument in favour of a sectoral merger into a unified body to deal with all consumer matters has nowbeen dissipated by the establishment of territorial committees, notably in Scotland and Wales. As we have heard, many of the council’s functions and roles will not be exercised by the council per se, but by those committees. Clearly the committees will—quite understandably—develop their own views, and perhaps their own procedures and approach to issues, not least to reflect the fact that there is, for example, a different legal system in Scotland. No doubt, the territorial committees’ views, approaches and procedures will start to diverge. Does the Minister recognise that the change made to the Bill in another place is of great significance to the operation of the council? What is the Government’s view of that potential for divergence? Do the Government regard that as positive and good; do they take a neutral view; or will they be concerned if that divergence grows too far?
Does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intend to interact with the territorial committees, or will it ultimately be a matter for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland? What role, if any, does he envisage the devolved assemblies having in relation to the territorial committees? I recognise that there could be many positive strengths to the provision, but what is important is that the character of the Bill, since it was first published in another place, has changed in quite important respects. It would be helpful to know what the Government’s view is on that matter.

Lorely Burt: We welcome the clause. The remit of the territorial committees appears to have been greatly strengthened from what was originally proposed in another place. We are very pleased about that, but we make the point that the word used in the clause is “may”. Although the territorial committees may be able to exercise these functions, there is no compulsion for them to do that. At least we welcome that fact that they could be reasonably expected to exercise those functions, and for that we are grateful to the Government.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady has outlined the Government’s comfort zone in this respect. We must remember that there will be a national work programme that we expect the new council to be able to reflect across the country.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, the clause reflects the Government’s amendments on Report in the House of Lords specifically to provide functions to territorial committees on the face of the Bill. The original draft provided the new council with discretion to delegate functions to territorial committees. The new draft has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish and Welsh consumer councils. The Government are relaxed; we do not say that there is any threat to the efficient working on behalf of the consumer and we are not exercised at all by the fact that these changes have been made and accepted in the Lords after debate.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister, and that is a helpful answer. In terms of accountability, does he envisage, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would deal solely with the council? If a problem arose with one of the territorial committees, who would deal with it?

Jim Fitzpatrick: That is a matter for the Secretaries of State and for the devolved assemblies. There would be consultation, and arrangements for communication, but ultimately, the new NCC will be responsible for the work programme, and it will be accountable as outlined in the Bill.
In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s question on divergence of territorial committees, the new council’s powers will ensure coherence and co-ordination. As reflected by our acceptance and tabling of amendments, we believe that it is important that there are territorial committees for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Bill deals with consumer issues, which are not in general devolved. Accountability remains with the national body and with the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

“Consumer” and “consumer matters”

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (3).

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
‘(ab) goods and services include those provided by means of the internet;’.
No. 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
‘(d) a person who purchases, uses or receives goods or services for the purpose of their own business.’.
No. 71, in clause 19, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
‘, including the right of online consumers to online complaints mechanisms.’.
No. 72, in clause 37, page 21, line 33, after ‘description’, insert ‘, including online consumers’.

Mark Prisk: I will consider amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together, but I confirm that they are all probing amendments, with which I hope to clarify the purpose of the legislation.
I draw the Committee’s attention to amendmentNo. 2, to clause 3 on page 2. I will go quickly through the specifics and then the related arguments. The amendment would strike out subsection (3). My purpose is to clarify exactly how the Government define “a future consumer”. An existing consumer is entirely understandable, obviously, and one understands why future consumers must be a consideration, but the worry is that the resources of the council might be used to try to anticipate people who might be consumers when there are more pressing and emergent issues. I will be interested in the Minister’s views.
Amendment No. 4 also relates to clause 3, but on page 3, and would leave out subsection (4)(b). Again, we seek clarity. Hon. Members can see that subsection (4)(b) says:
“‘goods’ include land or an interest in land”.
My understanding is that, in law, “goods” has a distinct meaning. I refer to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. But, goods as defined here—namely, including
“land or an interest in land”—
appears to be different. Could the Minister explain the difference and indeed the rationale? I ask that for perhaps one reason, although there are more, which I suspect others will be able to identify.
Given that the reference to an interest in land must, presumably, mean a financial interest, is there not a prospect of conflict in the Bill? Someone losingout from a property transaction could, as the Bill is currently drafted, seek redress both under part 2, as a consumer, and under part 3 through the estate agents scheme. That is a potentially conflicting message. I am also interested to know whether the Government believe that a good includes an interest in land, which I think would be a change in many people’s perceptions.
Lastly, amendment No. 3 would insert a new paragraph into subsection (4):
“(d) a person who purchases, uses or receives goods or services for the purpose of their own business.”
The reasoning is very simple: expressly to include and identify in the Bill small businesses—whether sole traders or limited companies—as consumers. Conservative Members, and I am sure many other hon. Members, are keen to see small businesses recognised as consumers; sole traders will be, because they act as individuals, but there is a grey area.

Tom Watson: I read the amendment with some interest. As I read the Bill, the National Consumer Council will not be prohibited from representing business consumers, but amendment No. 3 would oblige it to represent them. That strikes me as perhaps taking away from the work already done by the excellent Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI. Has the hon. Gentleman received representations from the Federation of Small Businesses? It would be a shame if his amendment undermined its work.

Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right that our deliberations need to be appropriate. That is why I began by saying that these are probing amendments. I am concerned with ensuring that the legislation is clearly expressed and that the Minister’s intentions are clarified, so that we are clear that the Government regard small businesses, whether incorporated or not, as having rights similar to those of individuals. A classic example would be a small company that faces the loss of its electricity supply. Does the Bill expressly ensure that that small business has the same rights of redress as an individual might? That is what I seek to ensure.

Tom Watson: This is an important probing amendment. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am concerned that we would inadvertently duplicate the work of other organisations. I am interested to know whether he consulted the Federation of Small Businesses before the amendment was tabled.

Mark Prisk: I talked to the Federation of Small Businesses at its national conference in Belfast. Several members represented to me their concern about the issue, which is that, sadly, small businesses do not often have the opportunity to be regarded as in the same way as a consumer. Similarly, I was at the British Chambers of Commerce’s annual conference yesterday, where various chambers expressed their concern to ensure that their members are properly represented. The Institute of Directors has raised such concerns with me as well.
The hon. Gentleman’s concerns are understandable, but I want to ensure that the Minister makes it clear in his reply that he regards, as I do, the rights of the small business in this respect to be just as important as those of the individual.

Stephen Pound: My right hon. Friend the Minister compared himself and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I recall that that film ended in a hail of bullets with both of them dying, but not before one of them had had the great pleasure of entertaining Katherine Ross on a slow-moving bicycle, so there are always compensations. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has lowered himself from the high moral pedestal that he occupies by daring to compare my right hon. Friend to a diminutive, cross-dressing Glaswegian chanteuse called Janette, one of the Krankies. I tend to think of the two of them as The Proclaimers, wearing Arran sweaters.
I rise not to make some obscure reference to Scottish folk duos such as The Humblebums, but to oppose amendment No. 3, to which the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford just referred. I do so in the spirit in which the probing amendment was moved; anyone who has had anything more than a cursory glance at the Bill will quickly recognise that it is a consensual Bill. Quite simply, we are seeking to do what all parliamentary representatives should do, which is to represent those who need the support ofan agency. With reference to the duopolies, it is unfortunate that I should be praying in aid David and Goliath later on.
In opposing the amendment, one has to ask why consumer organisations exist. They exist because there is an imbalance of knowledge and power between business and consumers and because consumers are unable to mobilise their interests in the same way as businesses. It can be something of a David-and-Goliath battle, as the Bill recognises. Consumers need a powerful advocate.

Mark Prisk: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Pound: I am just getting into my stride, but of course I will.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will have noticed, the amendment refers particularly to “their own business”, so it is intended to apply to owner-managed businesses. Does he recognise that such businesses sometimes face a David-and-Goliath battle when dealing with some large utility companies?

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which segues with the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. We have an existing imbalance. My hon. Friend mentioned the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses; there is also the Small Business Service. There are agenciesto assist that sector. It would inevitably confuse the purpose of the Bill, which is about consumer protection, if we were to widen the scope and definition of the wording in such a way. If agencies exist to support and advise, so be it. If we wish to bring them within the ambit of the Bill, we can do so. However, that is not what is being proposed today; this is about consumer protection.

Lorely Burt: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, as he understands it, small businesses will not fall within the remit of the Bill? Although, as he and other Labour Members say, small businesses are represented bythe Federation of Small Businesses and its ilk—organisations that are funded by their members—are we going to deny small businesses the representation of national bodies that are paid for out of taxpayers’ money?

Stephen Pound: Earlier, the hon. Lady structured an exegesis around the word “may”. The new National Consumer Council will, indeed, be able to represent such businesses, but that is not its principle duty under the Bill. We certainly do not seek to exclude anybody—the Bill is a model of inclusion—but it also  recognises specialisms and existing structures. We do not wish in any way to cut across the bow of people such as the excellent Stephen Alambritis of the FSB.
My point is that by establishing the new NCC on a statutory footing we hope to level the playing field. Businesses are consumers too. They purchase goods and services; they heat and light their offices; theysend post to each other—occasionally, it arrives—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Weir. A basilisk stare from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has almost turned me to stone. What I should say is that, under this Government, the post always arrives and it is always welcome.
It is important for businesses of all sizes, like individuals, to have a voice and a means to put matters right and to obtain redress when things go wrong. It is recognised that a sole trader might well suffer many of the disadvantages of the ordinary consumer. However, most businesses are in a different position from that of members of the public.

James Duddridge: This is indeed a probing amendment, and it refers to someone’s own business. Initially, I thought that businesses included large companies such as ICI. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out, the wording is “their own” businesses. Would the hon. Gentleman be reassured if the Government tabled an amendment that referred only to sole traders, rather than one encapsulating all small companies?

Stephen Pound: It is possibly a measure either ofmy naivety or of my complete trust in this excellent Government that I will always be reassured by any amendment that they table at any stage. However, I can already imagine the confusion that would exist if we were to seek to define the role of sole trader. We are not talking about Del Boy with a barrow and a three-wheeler in Peckham. It will be extremely difficult to define that role in the Bill. If I can make a little progress, the hon. Gentleman will understand where I am trying to get to.
As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, businesses already have effective representative organisations. In addition to those that have been mentioned, there are trade associations. We have mentioned the CBI, the FSB and the Small Business Service. Like many, I was surprised to hear Lord Truscott say—with some enthusiasm—in the other place that the new NCC, which will be funded, let it not be forgotten, by the taxpayer, could play a role in representing the interests of business consumers alongside those of ordinary consumers.
As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Solihull, nothing in the Bill will prevent the new NCC from representing the business consumer, but there is no obligation on it to do so. I am grateful for the briefing that we have received from people such as the excellent Helen Newton of the existing National Consumer Council, which clarifies that point.
The new organisation will decide which consumers to represent, in which areas and by what means. As an independent body, it is right that it has that freedom of choice. However, when making decisions about its work plan, the NCC will look to these debates tohelp it to decide which course to steer. That is whyit is important that we put down these points of clarification now, and I am sure that the Minister will clarify this important matter in his summing up.
Surely, the principal focus of the NCC, put simply, must be to represent the interests of ordinary consumers and those of vulnerable consumers in particular. That must be the overriding purpose behind the whole architecture, structure and thrust of the Bill. Frankly, that focus is what is needed most, and I doubt that that is too contentious. To command public confidence and legitimacy, it is essential that the NCC has a clear sense of purpose. There cannot and must not be ambiguity, which is why I am worried that there could be a muddying of the waters if we start to try to widen the ambit of the measures that we are proposing. 
Whom would the public think that the NCC was defending if the same businesses could, on the one hand, have redress sought against them, while on the other hand seeking redress? Builders, plumbers, second-hand car salesmen, mechanics and the like often cause consumers some unhappiness. There may well be occasions—not in my own case, obviously—when the interests of consumers and small businesses overlap, but there may also be times when those interests are in direct opposition. That would certainly cause some confusion in the minds of the public.
For example, the NCC has recently called for the abolition of quantity controls on taxis, which cause longer waiting times but protect the incomes of taxi drivers. So, on the one hand, there are the interests of the consumer, as the passenger; on the other hand, there are the interests of the sole operator of the cab. The NCC cannot fight in all directions at once and nor, frankly, should it.
One implication should be placed on the record. To be an effective advocate, the NCC will need to represent the consumer interest at local, national and international levels, in all forums, acting alone and through affiliations with international groups such as BEUC—I know there is a “business”, a “European” and a “consumer” in there, although I cannot remember exactly what it stands for, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with it—and Consumers International.
Quite rightly, those organisations maintain strict membership rules. Unsurprisingly, since they are consumer organisations, membership is not open to organisations that represent the voice of business. So those pillars are already in place. If the NCC were excluded from those organisations, as it might well be if we were to widen its ambit under the amendment, its effectiveness could be heavily compromised.
Membership of those groups has enabled the existing NCC to campaign magnificently at European level and more widely on issues such as intellectual property; the unfair commercial practices directive, which many of us have spent an evening reading with great enjoyment; the marketing of food and drink products to children, including, I need hardly add, nutrient profiling and simplified food labelling, to name but a few. The NCC has worked on all those campaigns, in partnership with bodies such as BEUC and Consumers International, and frankly, they would be severely jeopardised if the new body had to represent business consumers, which would prevent it from joining such consumer organisations.
I have no malice against the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford; he and I have sailed the deep oceans of the world together, and we have bonded. He is a good and decent man, and I know what he is trying to do; but equally, I would urge the Committee and the Minister to recognise that there is the potential for a confusing ambiguity if we were to include the business sector within the ambit of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister and the Committee will resist the amendment.

Lorely Burt: Follow that, as they say.
If I could just pick up on amendment No. 2 and the idea of excluding future customers from the remit of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats completely disagree with that. We do not see why it should be necessary to restrict the remit in any way, because the Bill already allows a great deal of discretion for those carrying out its provisions. The Minister may wish to explain that in a little more detail. Indeed, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford: there may be more of a probing element to the amendment than anything else.
Amendment No. 4 would specifically exclude
“land or an interest in land”.
Again, we are unsure why that should be excluded. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments. Amendment No. 3 is about including business in the remit of the Bill in respect of purchasing goods and services. In response to the erudite comments of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I have already raised one or two concerns about that. We feel strongly that businesses are consumers too. We look forward to the Minister’s confirmation that businesses of all sizes, but particularly small businesses and small traders, are included in the Bill’s remit.
I should also like to say a word about amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72. Although there has been no discussion on them yet, I assume that they are probing amendments. I am sure that the Minister will say that purchases on the internet are automatically included in the Bill. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is right to emphasise the importance of internet purchases, because of the lack of security that many people have experienced when buying goods and services online. There is a huge problem with regulation on the internet. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how we can make people who buy goods and services on the internet more secure.

Sharon Hodgson: May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir? I am pleased to be able to serve on this Committee, to scrutinise such an important Bill, which I am sure will give better consumer rights to every person in this country.
I should like to speak in support of my amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72. Their purpose is to put a spotlight on what is happening in the world of online trading, giving us the opportunity to address a problem that is emerging for consumers in this country. What I want to see is very simple: consumers who purchase goods and service online should able to complain online when things go wrong. These amendments would set down explicitly that the Government and the newly established National Consumer Council will make it a priority to resolve the inconsistencies of the rights available to consumers online. That is why I am pleased to have the support of the National Consumer Council, which says:
“It should be as easy for consumers to make a complaint or to redress poor customer service as it is to make a purchase. Consumers do have power and they can do their bit by not settling for second best and sticking to their guns on the standards they expect.”
The internet is clearly a fantastic tool, which is transforming peoples lives. At the same time though, it is beginning to run away from existing legislation. A failure to address that would leave us open to the risk of damaging long-term consumer confidence in online markets, and I am sure that no one wants to do that. More and more people have access to broadband and are buying online. About half the population are involved at present, although that is set to increase, as are the connection speeds, which will in turn encourage more people to use the internet.
It is easy enough to click and buy a flight, a fridge or flowers for a friend. Companies go out of their way to set up websites and encourage people to order online, but many are not making it as easy to seek redress and complain in the same way. Not only will they not allow online complaints, but existing protection for the online consumer is very fuzzy. Who pays if someone needs to send a product back? Which country is the company that someone is purchasing from based in? When people just bought goods in a shop and something went wrong, they could simply pop back to the shop, see the manager and be compensated if the shop was at fault. Now, they often have to navigate through a thicket of premium-rate numbers and overseas call centres. Most decent retailers probably either already have such a complaints system, or understand that it is the smart way to attract and retain customers, but others need to be obliged to do the right thing—and I hope that Michael O’Leary is listening.
I was first alerted to the need for legislation to look at online trading by people’s experience of Ryanair—although it is not the only culprit—which trades online but absolutely refuses to set up an e-mail for customers. Instead, it says that people should phone a number that costs 10p a minute, or write a letter or fax the company in Dublin. Ten pence a minute might not sound a lot, but if people try to call it, they could be online for about 40 minutes before they even get to speak to a human at the other end, if at all. Ryanair refused even to take an e-mail on this issue from me. It is no surprise that Ryanair has been described as the irresponsible face of capitalism.
This led me to table early-day motion 2643 last year on the Ryanair complaints mechanism, and I was pleased to see that it attracted cross-party support and had nearly 60 signatures. The early-day motion
“notes that Ryanair is one of the main providers of cheap flights, which are popular with consumers; regrets that Ryanair has no plans to provide an email address for such purposes and directs its customers to use either a telephone number”—
 at a cost of 10p a minute—
“or to post or fax complaints to its head office in Dublin; calls upon online-based companies such as Ryanair to improve the ability of their customers to communicate with the company after sales by at least publishing an email address for this purpose so that redress for poor service is made less complicated and expensive”.
Given the company’s point-blank refusal to play ball, my early-day motion took a drastic step in noting,
“that Caroline Green, Head of Customer Services for Ryanair can be contacted at greenc@ryanair.com and that the geographical telephone number for its head office in Dublin is00 353 18121212, which is cheaper than its high tariff 0871 number”.
When my office later phoned to double-check the company’s position on establishing an e-mail, it refused to talk and insisted that I write to Dublin. My e-mails still go unanswered; so, Michael O’Leary, if you are listening, please get your act together and take e-mails. Michael is, of course, free to e-mail me anytime at hodgsons@parliament.uk, to say that he will set up an e-mail address. I can assure him that his e-mail will not go unanswered.

Michael Weir: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has made her point, and I am sure that she can send Mr. O’Leary a copy of the report of the debate. I ask her to come back to the terms of the amendments.

Sharon Hodgson: Thank you, Mr. Weir, and I thank the Committee for its patience on this matter. If the internet is meant to make life easier, its benefits must be a two-way street. Ryanair could not function without using online sales, and it should not function without utilising online customer services. That is the worst possible practice. Customer service should never be seen as an overhead, but as an integral part of a company’s relations with the consumer. People would not mind paying a few extra pence if they knew that they could receive a quality service if things go wrong.
Last year, the NCC produced an excellent report called “The stupid company: how British businesses throw away money by alienating consumers”. In one part of its analysis, the report comments:
“The stupid company appears distant from consumers and deals with them in a clinical and sometimes uncaring manner. People detest impersonal communications, and almost everyone complains about call centres, automated telephone systems and cold calling. Consumers react particularly badly when companies do not take ownership of a problem, or where an individual inquiry is met with a computerised reply that ignores the particular circumstances.”
Accepting these amendments would mean that we could seek to accept a rule of best practice. Companies cannot maintain an ephemeral online presence—“here when you want, gone when we don’t.” The purpose of the Bill should be praised; it is a good piece of Labour legislation that will give the little people the chance to stand up to the big boys. It is a chance to square the playing field and to ensure that consumers get the information that they need.
Clearly, the fact that the online world without borders and territories makes enacting catch-all rules difficult and complex, and I am not suggesting that we  should do that. There are already some EU provisions in place—hopefully, more are to follow with theunfair commercial practices directive—which would harmonise rights of European online consumers, but Britain should be proud to lead the way. We are proud to be doing so on climate change, with that leadership achieved by taking bold steps and coercing companies to do the right thing. We should be doing the same for online consumer rights. I am not the only one who feels that way: I am sure that if anyone in this room were to ask a colleague or friend, they would be able share tales of frustration when things go wrong after purchasing online.
The NCC is the focus of much of the Bill, and it is clear that it feels that anything that makes it easier for consumers to get what they deserve by complaining should be welcomed. It seems that at present, nowhere is the need for greater consumer rights so clear as in cyberspace. Any good Government should enable their citizens to empower themselves, and setting out a clear specification that the Government intend to do just that for those who purchased goods and services online would be an example of good governance from a good Government. Establishing lasting protection forthe consumer as the internet age reaches maturity is the reason that I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Ian McCartney: I will give a comprehensive reply to all the amendments, and the reasons why I will resist them. I know from my experience of being an Opposition spokesperson and a Back Bencher for my first 10 years in Parliament how difficult it is to table probing amendments. By their nature, they are rather lax in their wording. As a consequence of that, three out of four of the amendments tabled by the Conservatives are extremely anti-consumer in their individual consequences and in the intellectual input to what is being proposed. The other amendment makes a genuine, reasonable point. I hope to cover all the Opposition amendments, and I will also deal with amendments Nos. 71 and 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that I take his contribution in the spirit in which it was intended. I shall not follow his line of argument, but we both reach the same conclusion that we will resist the Opposition amendment. I am not goingto do anything other than support the concept ofsmall businesses being treated as a consumer in all circumstances. I shall explain the legal basis of that in a moment. I also hope that I shall comprehensively cover the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull.
The Bill delivers real benefits for consumers with a new NCC, with a new remit and statutory powers and duties for the first time. A new statutory redress scheme for gas, electricity and postal services will resolve consumer complaints, not just arrange for them to be handled. A key objective of the Bill is to equip thenew council with the flexibility to act on behalf of consumers today and to anticipate consumers’ needs in the months and years ahead. Of course, that flexibility is coupled with responsibility and accountability. The new council will need to be able to identify and consult on its priorities and it will need to be transparent, to account for what it has done to advance consumers’ interests.
Some of the Opposition amendments would reduce flexibility, cut down the scope of the new council and what it can do for consumers, and would prevent it from looking at the future needs of consumers. I shall resist those amendments, and others that try to undermine the new council and its pursuit of consumers’ interests.
Amendment No. 2 would have the effect of excluding future consumers from the scope of the new council’s remit. We are naturally keen to ensure that, when undertaking any of its functions, the new council should aim to consider the long-term implications for consumers. The amendment would not be beneficial to consumers. A responsible consumer body will need to be able to balance short-term issues against longer-term consumer benefit. A short-term focus on low prices in the market may not serve consumers well if it leads to under-investment or lack of competition and choice in the future. That is why the provision is inthe Bill.
Excluding future consumers would limit the flexibility of the new council to anticipate changing customer pressures. That is why we seek flexibility. The new council must be able to weigh the current position for consumers against a future position and the impact of what we do now as a society to address matterssuch as environmental conditions that will affect consumption in future years. It is critical that the NCC has the capacity to take account of all trends and the impacts—positive or negative—on the rights of consumers, and to participate and help with policy submissions. The NCC must be able not only to focus but to help to fashion policy in future years. We do not want an organisation that is just an advocacy body, which tends to deal with situations when they break down and there is a need for redress. We want a body with the ability to give the present and future Governments and Parliament its best advice on the marketplace and on the impact of changes in the marketplace on consumers. That is very important.
Amendment No. 3 purports to enable the new council to represent the interests of business consumers, which is appropriate and necessary. However, the amendment is not required, because the new council can already represent business. Clause 3 provides for a “consumer” as
“a person who purchases, uses or receives...goods or services”,
which includes business. The standard legal interpretation of “person” includes persons corporate or incorporate. In other words, the definition of a consumer in the Bill already adequately includes business consumers. That goes back to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North’s point about the taxi driver.
For the record, I once represented London taxi drivers in my role at the Transport and General Workers Union—I remember it fondly. Despite all the legitimate complaints made about taxi drivers, who have to respond about their conduct to the licensing authority, it is also true that taxi drivers seek mortgages, purchase and sell property, and have to deal with issues such as electricity costs and water. There is a legitimate role for a business to conduct itself as a business as well as, at the same time, having rights as a consumer. That is why the provision is important.
I hope now to give the legal explanation. From a personal point of view, I consider all of us here as small business people in our own right: we employ people and use goods and services to represent effectivelyour constituents. From time to time we Members of Parliament come across a problem with our own facilities, goods or services. It is very important for there to be absolute clarity that small businesses—or businesses per se—have the right to utilise the legislation and will be able to do so.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to exclude
“land or an interest in land”
from the definition of “goods” in the Bill. That would certainly not be helpful to consumers. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to guess what I am going to say? But I will give way to him.

Ben Wallace: The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is very specific about the definition of “goods”. That definition has remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. Why have the Government decided to use the Bill to extend that definition to include land, when defining “consumer” by the consumption of services would probably be adequate?

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman should have waited for the buzzer, but his intervention is well intended. As the law stands, rights in land such as lease or tenancy are called “interests in land”. That is what the law says and that is why the Bill is designed as it is.
Many of the most important and expensive issues facing consumers arise from their interest in property, so it would not be sensible to exclude the sector from the scope of the new council. With the powers provided in the Bill the new council will be able to investigate all the issues concerning consumers, including house purchase, sale or letting. The new council will be able to draw the attention of the Government to any issue that it considers need to be addressed. Therefore, it is important that definitions in the Bill are the same as definitions in law. The measure is not freestanding; the Government have not put it there on a whim. The aim is to ensure that the legal obligation that is placed on the new NCC, and its rights of investigation, inquiry and consultation, give it the widest possible scope to deal with the issues that consumers will raise with it.

Ben Wallace: I am not a surveyor, but I am concerned that we might be duplicating an existing provision. We already have the lands tribunal system to resolve disputes and investigate conflicts between the owner or provider of land and the consumer—the tenant. Are we not replicating unnecessarily?

Ian McCartney: No. The hon. Gentleman is mixing up a number of issues. I am not a lawyer, but we are dealing with leasehold and freehold, which are entirely different. Leasehold and freehold legislation relates, for example, to the rights of a leaseholder who has been treated unfairly under his lease, or who wishes to purchase the lease and turn it into a freehold but meets resistance from the owner of the freehold. There is a legislative process to ensure that the interests of the leaseholder are represented.
Let me give another example. Some years ago we changed the legislation to deal with the situation in which the freehold of entire blocks of flats in London was held by a single freeholder, but the tenant or owner of each flat was a leaseholder. There is a requirement in law to protect the interests of such individuals in case, for example, the freeholder decides to refurbish the property, so that the refurbishment cannot damage the interests of the leaseholder or increase the capital value of the property to the extent that the freeholder can resist the ability of the leaseholder to purchase the freehold from him appropriately in the marketplace. There is a legal process for appeal and for such matters to be determined; that has been set down in statute for many years, under Governments of both major parties. From time to time the law is upgraded, and every time some freeholders try to find a way around it. However, most of them do not. Many freeholders in this country are good, legitimate, well run companies that do an effective job on behalf of their tenants and leaseholders. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is mixing up these measures with other parts of property law.
We are talking simply about the ability of the new NCC to carry out the obligations set out for it in the Bill. It should be free to conduct research and to represent consumers, for example. However, let us be clear that there is no duplication in part 3. If an individual consumer has a problem with an estate agent, he can pursue it through the redress scheme approved under part 3—that point was well made. It is not a double whammy. People cannot pick and choose and seek redress from more than one scheme; they must get it through the scheme with which the company is registered. If it is not registered, it cannot conduct business as an estate agent.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, I am a surveyor. The Minister is correct in terms of long leaseholds and the change in the relationship under property law. I think that he is saying that the definition here includes an interest in land and land holdings, but not of a financial character. Clearly, that would start to drift in the direction of the Financial Services Act 2000 and other legislation that is not within the remit of the new council.

Ian McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have given me a tip-off that he is professionally qualified. I am an enthusiastic amateur for the purposes of answering this debate. I do not use that as an excuse, but it is important to separate out what we are talking about.
We are considering issues that are in the purviewof the new NCC. Beyond that, there is an array of organisations and legislation that is covered differently. The Bill has no impact on that. We are trying to achieve clarity by establishing a process of redress through the Secretary of State, a redress scheme or schemes and a requirement on the organisation to be registered as a member of such a scheme, without which it cannot operate in the marketplace as an estate agent. There are legitimate discussions that we may have in later debates on whether the scheme should be extended in future years.
A consumer will not pursue redress twice through different redress schemes in different parts of the Bill. Part 2 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require energy and postal services suppliers to belong to a redress scheme. Part 3 enables the Secretary of State to require estate agents to belong to a redress scheme, and any complaint against an estate agent relating to residential property will be dealt with via the redress scheme to which the estate agent must belong. I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman what we are trying to achieve.
Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72, tabled by myhon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, raise important issues. I also congratulate her on tabling an early day motion just before the summer recess last year. I hope to give her a detailed response to the points she raised and to set out the current position in respect of issues relating to Ryanair.
It is important that consumers who purchase goods and services online should be able to make complaints and to seek redress online directly and easily from the service or goods provider. Any lack of confidence in that respect would negatively affect the longer term health and growth of the internet shopping market and the consumer’s willingness to engage in it. It is in everyone’s interest that those who provide goods and services have a clear understanding of their obligations and the standards expected of them, and that information is available for consumers so that if things go wrong they can effect change whether that is redress for the consumer or a change in the company’s policy towards the consumer, individually or collectively.
The electronic commerce directive implemented in the United Kingdom by the Electronic Commerce(EC Directive) Regulations 2002 requires information society service providers to provide certain information on their websites and on other electronic commercial communications. Information society service providers include services normally provided for remuneration at a distance by means of electronic equipment at the individual request of a recipient of a service. Article 5 requires internet providers of goods and services to provide the recipient of the service with the name of the service provider, the geographical address at which the service provider is established, and details of the service provider, including his or her e-mail address, which is very important as it makes it possible to contact them rapidly and to communicate with them in a direct and effective manner.
The primary enforcement authority in respect of EU information society service providers is the member state in which the provider has its headquarters. In the case of Ryanair, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West referred earlier, it is the Republic of Ireland, but we have not left the matter there. The Ryanair case was brought tothe attention of the Office of Fair Trading, which contacted its Irish counterpart, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, which is giving the matter its full consideration and has already communicated in writing with Ryanair. I have asked the OFT to keep me up to speed with developments.
Members of the Committee should be aware that an unfair commercial practices directive, which will be implemented in April next year, will also require traders inviting consumers to purchase goods and services to provide information such as geographical addresses and a complaints handling policy. The distance selling directive also requires traders to provide their address, but it does not apply to transport services. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the issue and I will write to her and to the hon. Members for Solihull and for Hertford and Stortford when I receive information via the OFT about the action, if any, that is proposed by the Irish authorities on Ryanair. I hope to be able to answer hon. Members’ questions on the matter.

Susan Kramer: Will the Minister confirm that the national consumer council as it will be constituted will be able to look beyond the territories of the United Kingdom and the European Union to pursue consumer issues?

Ian McCartney: I will give the hon. Lady an example. Let us say that we were at the start of a process under the unfair commercial practices directive and a draft proposal had been put forward by the Commission. As well as the Government, the NCC would have the opportunity to be consulted, and it would also consult its regional and territorial groups. It will have the wider remit of being able to influence not just policy direction here in the United Kingdom but all consumer policy matters across the single market and the European Union. That is critical because a great deal of the consumer protection covered by amendments Nos. 71 and 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, is in fact provided by the European Union.
In short, the NCC will have the capacity—indeed, the obligation—to make representations and to propose ideas and suggestions. It will be able to work directly with the European Commission on any policy direction that it wishes to take and in any consultations on the outcome of policy direction on consumer matters.

Mark Prisk: I should have mentioned the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and said that her amendments are well intentioned. I shall not speak to them at length, but if I did not mention them I suspect I might get an e-mail, and who knows what might happen?
I turn to the three amendments that I tabled. As I said at the beginning of the debate, which has been productive and helpful, they are probing amendments and their purpose is to help to clarify the legislation. On amendment No. 2, the Minister rightly described the purpose of the provision in question: to ensure that the definition of a consumer includes a future consumer. He rightly pointed out the need for a strategic vision, which I entirely endorse. I am glad that we have got that on the record.
As the Minister said, amendment No. 4 would remove from the definition of “goods” an interest in land. I sought the Government’s rationale for that definition, and I understand its purpose. It was important to have that clarified because the functions being given to the council are not of enforcement but of consideration. As we know, and will consider under part 3 of the Bill, matters of home ownership and so on are of great concern to consumers, so I am glad that the Minister has clarified the matter.
We had an interesting debate on amendment No. 3 and I was happy that the hon. Member for Ealing, North, made, as usual, erudite and loquacious remarks. As always, he was able to argue what appeared to be at least three different points of view in the same sentence—I always admire his ability to do that. Although it is true that we have bonded on the high seas, I think that the less said about that, the better. He did not note that the noble Lord Truscott made it clear in the Lords debate that the Government’s view isthat the definition of “consumers” includes business. Although the hon. Gentleman’s aim was understandable, the Minister then confirmed that definition quite clearly.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the purpose of the council should be to work for consumers, as we understand the term in common parlance, and for vulnerable consumers in particular. My intention was to ensure that we had a clear view that the definition should include persons corporate and incorporate. The Minister gave us that view, and it was an important debate.

Sharon Hodgson: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his response. I feel somewhat reassured by it, and I know—I hope that he will not take this the wrong way—that he is on the side of the little people. The only proviso that I wish to give is on the EC directive requiring companies to provide an e-mail address, which is fantastic. That is the first step, and the Minister is going to take up the fact that Ryanair is not fulfilling that requirement. I want an online complaints mechanism so that the whole process of a complaint can be dealt with online. Some companies provide an e-mail address, but someone who e-mails gets a reply telling them to write or telephone to take the process further. With my right hon. Friend’s assurances, I am happy not to press my amendments.

Mark Prisk: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Steve McCabe.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o’clock till this day at Four o’clock.